5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Yerevan.
6.  The applicant alleged that at 9.20 a.m. on 18 October 2006 he had been taken to the local police station in the town of Alaverdi in connection with an armed assault that had taken place earlier that day. He further alleged that his arrest had not been recorded and that he had been released several hours later.
7.  On 19 October 2006 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article 175 § 2 (2) and (4) of the Criminal Code (CC). The proceedings were instituted upon the complaint of the victim, G.H., who lived in the same building as the applicant. According to G.H., at 8.45 p.m. on 18 October 2006 the applicant, who had been wearing a mask, had attacked him on the ground floor of their building, hit him on the head with a metal rod and grabbed his briefcase, which had been full of expensive jewellery.
8.  At 8 p.m. on the same day the applicant was formally arrested on suspicion of having committed the above-mentioned offence. The arrest report was signed by the applicant.
9.  On 22 October 2006 the applicant was formally charged with robbery under the above-mentioned Article. The charge sheet specified that following the incident the victim had pursued the applicant, who had been forced to drop the briefcase and flee. It was signed by the applicant.
10.  On the same date the investigator applied to the Lori Regional Court to have the applicant detained for a period of two months on the grounds that he had previous convictions, the offence belonged to the category of serious crimes and that, if at large, he would abscond.
11.  On the same date the Regional Court examined and granted the investigator’s application, finding that the case materials provided sufficient grounds for believing that the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation, having regard to the nature and degree of dangerousness of the offence in question.
12.  On 8 December 2006 the investigator sought to have the applicant’s detention extended by a further two months. The application stated that a number of examinations had been carried out during the investigation, including chemical and biological examinations and an examination of the traces left by the crime. However, an additional biological examination had to be carried out and the charge amended. The investigator argued that the applicant, if released, would abscond since he had committed a serious crime and might commit further offences as he had previous convictions. He had not admitted his guilt and would therefore obstruct the investigation. The investigator submitted, in support of his application, a number of case materials, such as the decision to institute criminal proceedings, the arrest report and the decision to bring charges.
13.  On 12 December 2006 the Regional Court examined the investigator’s application. The applicant was present at that hearing and was seated next to his lawyer.
14.  The applicant objected to the investigator’s application and asked the court to release him on bail. He submitted at the outset that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. The fact that he had committed offences in the past did not justify detaining him in this particular case. The Regional Court stated in that regard that it was not examining the case on the merits, including the question of the applicant’s guilt, but was examining the validity of the application for an extension of the applicant’s detention. There was a difference between the issue of guilt and that of the existence of a reasonable suspicion.
15.  The applicant further submitted that there was no concrete evidence justifying his detention. In response to a request by the applicant to produce evidence, the investigator admitted that no such evidence was available. He submitted that a number of examinations had been ordered and that it was necessary to take a blood sample in order to determine whether the applicant’s blood group corresponded to the traces of blood found on the victim’s shoes. The presiding judge then asked the investigator to present all the materials of the case. Shortly afterwards, the judge withdrew to the deliberation room.
16.  The Regional Court, having examined the investigator’s application and the materials confirming that it was well-founded, decided to grant the application in part and to extend the applicant’s detention by one month – until 19 January 2007 – on the ground that on 8 December 2006 the investigator had ordered a biological examination which had not yet been completed. Referring to Article 143 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), the court further decided to refuse the applicant’s request for bail, on the ground that he was accused of a serious crime.
17.  On 27 December 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal. He submitted, inter alia, that there was no reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence. The documents submitted by the investigator in support of his application, such as the decision to institute criminal proceedings, the arrest report and the decision to bring charges, were not sufficient to found a reasonable suspicion. Moreover, the Regional Court had refused, in general terms, to address the issue of the existence of a reasonable suspicion. The applicant further contested the allegation that he might commit further offences, which was based solely on the fact that he had previous convictions. Furthermore, there was no concrete evidence suggesting that he would abscond, and the need to carry out an additional biological examination could not serve as a ground for his continued detention. Lastly, the applicant argued that the proceedings in the Regional Court had not been adversarial and had violated the principle of equality of arms since the presiding judge, having failed at the hearing to examine any evidence on which to found a reasonable suspicion, had received the entire case file from the investigator before withdrawing to the deliberation room. The applicant had neither had access to any of those materials nor the possibility to comment on them.
18.  On 25 January 2007 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Regional Court. It stated that the investigating authority had submitted certain evidence substantiating the applicant’s guilt which confirmed his involvement in the event. Thus, there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence. The Court of Appeal found that there was a need to extend the applicant’s detention, having regard to the dangerousness and nature of the alleged offence and the fact that he might abscond and obstruct the investigation. It dismissed his application for bail on the same grounds. It considered that the decision of the Regional Court to extend detention and refuse bail was well-founded and reasoned and that there were no grounds to amend that decision.
19.  On 9 January 2007 the investigator lodged an application seeking to have the applicant’s detention extended by one month on the same grounds as before.
20.  On 12 January 2007 the Regional Court examined the investigator’s application. The applicant was present at that hearing and was seated next to his lawyer. He objected to the investigator’s application and asked the court to release him on bail. The Regional Court decided to grant the application and to extend the applicant’s detention by one month – until 19 February 2007 – on the ground that the investigator had ordered a number of examinations which had not yet been completed. The court further decided to refuse the applicant’s request for bail on the same ground as before.
21.  On 27 January 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal.
22.  On 8 February 2007 the charges against the applicant were amended. In addition to the original charge the applicant was also accused of recidivism and attempted murder.
23.  On 16 February 2007 the investigation was completed and the applicant was granted access to the materials in the case.
24.  On 19 February 2007 the applicant’s detention period, authorised by the decision of 12 January 2007, expired.
25.  On the same date the prosecutor approved the indictment and the case was sent to the Lori Regional Court for examination on the merits.
26.  On the same date the Court of Appeal decided to leave the applicant’s appeal of 27 January 2007 unexamined on the ground that the investigation had been completed and the case transmitted to the Regional Court.
27.  On 5 March 2007 the applicant lodged an application with the Regional Court claiming that his detention had been unlawful since 19 February 2007 and requesting his release. A similar application was made to the chief of the detention facility where the applicant was held.
28.  By a letter of 6 March 2007 the chief of the detention facility refused the request, referring to Article 138 of the CCP, on the ground that the case had been transmitted to the Regional Court.
29.  On 12 March 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the application of 5 March 2007 on the same grounds.
30.  On the same date the Regional Court decided to set the applicant’s criminal case down for trial. The decision stated that the applicant’s detention was to remain unchanged.
31.  In the courtroom, during the proceedings before the Regional Court, the applicant was placed in a metal cage measuring about 4.5 sq. m. He was represented by a lawyer.
32.  At the hearing of 21 March 2007 the applicant requested to be released from the cage. The Regional Court decided to adjourn the examination of that question.
33.  At the hearing of 30 March 2007 the applicant challenged the presiding judge. He submitted, inter alia, that his placement in the metal cage had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and also violated the principle of equality of arms and the presumption of innocence, despite which the presiding judge had failed to take any measures to eliminate those encroachments on his rights. It appears that this challenge was dismissed as unfounded.
34.  The applicant alleged that following the dismissal of that challenge he had again requested to be released from the cage, but the court had refused his request on the ground that it had no other means of ensuring security in the courtroom. The Government alleged that no further steps had been taken by the applicant in that connection following the dismissal of the challenge.
35.  During the entire proceedings before the Regional Court the applicant was kept in the metal cage. The proceedings lasted almost nine months and included twenty-one public hearings at which the applicant was present. The hearings lasted between twenty-five minutes and seven hours. It appears that the case attracted public attention in the town of Alaverdi and that the hearings were attended by the applicant’s family and friends and numerous other members of the public, including other inhabitants of the town and many students.
36.  On 24 July and 18 August 2007 the applicant lodged appeals on points of law against the decisions of 25 January and 19 February 2007.
37.  At the hearing on 8 August 2007 the applicant asked the Regional Court to revoke his detention order or otherwise release him on bail. He submitted that he had been in detention for almost ten months. There were no grounds justifying his continued detention since all the witnesses had already been examined and he could not obstruct the proceedings. The prosecutor objected to the request, stating that the applicant could not be released on bail because he was accused of a serious crime. The Regional Court decided to dismiss the applicant’s request on the ground that the examination of the case was not yet over and there were insufficient grounds to revoke his detention or release him on bail.
38.  On 6 September 2007 the Court of Cassation decided to return the applicant’s appeals of 24 July and 18 August 2007 for lack of merit.
39.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor decided to drop the charges and sought an order from the Regional Court terminating the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the evidence obtained was not sufficient to support the charges against him.
40.  On 5 December 2007 the Lori Regional Court decided to grant that application and to terminate the criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 35 § 4 of the CCP.
41.  On the same date the applicant was released from detention.